Gerald Coles here analyzes President Obama’s inaugural speech to divine what the President has in mind when he thinks about education policy.
Coles unpacks the assumptions.
The President seems to think of education only in terms of economic needs.
He sees children as global competitors.
He thinks that schools can overcome poverty.
It makes for interesting readin
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Excellent. The inaugural address that was hailed by many as an articulation and celebration of liberal ideals did not strike me as such. I would call it dystopian but it actually does describe the here and now.
I thought to myself what sort of person writes such a line as this?
We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else…
Is that the best we can do?
.
Good points, Ann. I have to wonder why any little girl living in the greatest country in the world, should ever be born into bleak poverty. Shouldn’t we be working to prevent this scenario?
So true, reading exchange, and note that he actually said “bleakEST poverty.” So what can we expect from his second term?
More of the same–and worse–unless WE bring about some change.
I appreciate the sentiment. But, who’s Obama play basketball with? Those are all guys from rich families.
Second, the little girl born into the bleakest of poverty, who at least succeeded by getting a teaching career, just got fired by Rhee or Duncan, and replaced by who? A person from privelege.
If TFA would only hire teachers who were “born into the bleakest poverty”, then they would truly be leading by example, and giving credence to Obama’s statement.
Point well taken, except I’d say the poor girl (in more ways than one) would be replaced, not be a crumb from the upper crust, but by some gullible TFA guinea pig who will curse the day they drank the kool aid and signed up for the corporate crud, only to find they entered an Orwellian sweat shop of laughable pay, excruciating hours and pray for the day they will fly the coop, sadder, poorer, but maybe wiser to the Jeb Bush/Michelle Rhee dog and pony show!
I think that was a sentence about what Obama hopes will happen. Did you vote for Obama, Ann? If so, why?
Or are you over there with Rush?
Is it that clear cut? You either voted for Obama or you with Rush. I didn’t vote for Obama nor Romney and I certainly have nothing but disdain for Rush. It isn’t that simple. Maybe our current crop of politicians do not represent the people anymore. I think Obama is out clearly of touch. When has he spoken to teachers, to those in the trenches? He listens to those with money and power. He is part of the problem.
Thanks for clarifying Linda.
Exactly. The only reasonable interpretation of my post is that I’m with Rush. Same goes for the Coles essay.
Linda, you are correct. It has been a bitter realization for me to accept the fact that NO political party has the correct vision for public education. That is why we must keep speaking out and treasure blogs, such as this one. Thank you, Dr. Ravitch, for providing this platform.
I truly agree, your blog is a so vital to try to stem the tide of destruction of teaching and educating students. I think we have to pull back to encompass the whole national picture of what the corporate elite have done to the middle class, unions, wealth transferal and public education. They are ALL parts of the whole corporate assault
that has transformed our nation from what it was thirty years ago. When I reflect on that, I see our fight being far more than just a locale, or state crusade; although these smaller compo-nets are where we live. If we don’t recognize where the puppet masters, we’ll never to able to cut their strings that are choking our nation on a multitude of fronts.
The post should read “what LIES are ahead for education in Obama’s second term”?
Clever and true.
But this goes beyond education– it is about saying that education is the only vehicle of escape for education. It is about saying the best we can do for you is offer you a chance.
Of course I deplore the notion that an education is only to be valued for its economic utility– what about the value in say, reading a well written novel not of your choosing (and out of your comfort zone) that forces you to see through the eyes of others. Isn’t this an excellent way to develop empathy? It goes without saying that we can’t even discuss developing a lifelong love of reading for pleasure’s sake!
By the president’s telling we’re all servants of the economy. Even if I accept his language of commerce and look at education purely for economic utility I would still saying he is missing the whole picture– we are also consumers– and as such we need to be able to evaluate information and not be taken advantage of.
President Obama can speak of “empowerment” but I find MLK’s conception of education much more empowering (although I prefer the term “liberating”).
Obama embodies neoliberal thinking in both political parties, a viewpoint that has been completely debunked and discredited by facts.
Be careful. Arne Duncan is still Sec. of Education. That tells volumes. Someone suggested that the federal govt. should get out of the classroom entirely. I think I agree.
I think it is about time for the friends of public education to quit hoping for a new approach toward education from the president. Wishing, hoping and exposing the truth about education reform are worse than pointless. We need a conspiracy of the competent and caring to wrest control.
The sooner people realize: Obama=Duncan=Gates=Broad=Koop=Bloomberg=Klien=Cuomo=Koch=Bush=Christie, the better.
False idols are worse than enemies.
Good question, Susan Nunes.
Hi, Galton,
The fact that he chose his basketball buddy Arne to be Sec’y of Education told me all I needed to know about how important public education was to President Obama. Not so much.
The Chicago Public Schools, I hear, are now being operated & directed by 3 sorority sisters. Isn’t that something?
Cheryl,
You are correct again.
Seems pretty obvious; if you cared about public schools, you would NEVER put BROADIES like Arne Duncan or Christopher Cerf in charge of anything of value. Perfect stooge/shills though.
Consider reading:
The Inconvenient Truth of education reform revealed:
In the recent Presidential Election, both candidates proclaimed education reform to be “the civil rights issue of our time” – the very same words uttered by former president George Bush over a decade ago when he signed the No Child Left Behind legislation.
Over 10 years later we see how education reform mandates have played out – powerful corporate interests are mining new profit centers while poor children of color, who were the intended beneficiaries of reform, are getting stuck with the shaft.
Those whose only value is to “let the free market work” are doubtlessly content with this sistuation. But the inconvenient truth is that despite any stated intention to use education reform as a means to advance civil rights, the reality is that reform measures in their current frame are resulting in deep and pervasive civil wrongs.
And people still considering themselves to be allied with the noble cause of “education reform” need to either drop the pretension of being “for students” and “civil rights” or pause to reconsider “whose side are you on.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/02/the-inconvenient-truth-of-education-reform/
Reviewing “W” and his NCLB and then RTT, capped off with the edits of Arney, it’s a
wonder there is anything left of public education…but just wait until Jeb and his teacher hating pal, Michelle Rhee, are done “fixing” the system! If that won’t destroy any vestige of educational sanity, then if Senator Bennett replaces Duncan and “fixes” education the way he did in Denver…a “W” phrase comes to mind, “Mission Accomplished!” The goal of an leaving no child able to think critically (let alone read)
will be a corporate victory! Just ask Gates if this isn’t true!
Hard to believe Cole & I heard the same speech. The President
* Spoke out for equal treatment of people, regardless of sexuality orientation – as a matter of right. Adopting his attitudes would help millions of youngsters
* Spoke out for the Dream Act and for Immigration Reform, again, helping millions of youngsters & their families
* Has worked very hard, and been vilified, to expand health care, which once again, will help millions of young people.
* Is going to work for much more rational gun policies which could help save lives.
Those are just a few examples. Obama isn’t perfect. But he has done and is doing a lot to help low income kids. His work shows he thinks we need to work outside as well as inside schools to help students succeed.
Do those of you who criticized Obama not agree that he is trying to advance opportunities for people, regardless of sexual orieintation?
Do you agree that he is trying to work for Immigration Reform?
Do you agree that he is trying for a better policy on guns?
Do you think that his health care law will improve health for low income families?
Or is all that irrelevant?
I guess it is all wonderful unless you are one of the kids whose school has been closed and you believe you have been discriminated against?
Why else would multiple cities travel to DC for their Journey to Justice? They had nothing better to do?
It is almost as if since this doesn’t affect you, it is not happening.
If KIPP and other charters are so great, why are Malia and Sasha at Sidwell Friends?
Joe, how often do you think the Obama girls are tested or test prepped?
Linda, do you see anywhere in my post where I say things are perfect? IN fact, I said the opposite.
I’m sorry the President is sending his kids to an exclusive private school.
On the issue of forced school closures – I think there are many reasons for concerns on this. I understand why people are upset. Whether the schools closed are district or charter, there almost always are some people who are upset that “their” school is closed. There are terrific examples of district schools improving, rather than being closed.
In terms of charters – there are contracts for performance, some that are clear than others. But part of the charter deal is increased freedom over budget, curriculum, pedagogy,
I hope there is careful examination of the policy of closing district schools around the country. Lots more to say about this. But I think the people going to Washington on this issue are raising important questions.
Having said that, I think what Coles says about President misses a lot. It misses a great deal – just as Rush Limbaugh misses a great deal.
The closings are staged. Schools are starved into destruction by Bloomberg and Emanuel. This is a charter and real estate plan. They could care less about the kids. The determination is based on test scores alone after being given the worst of situations and on purpose. A fool would believe their mantra.
It IS a business plan. The kids be damned. Teachers are human capital to be tossed. Kids are data to be sold.
The Gates DOE must find a way to lower overhead and standardize children for their purposes. I do not believe the sole purpose of education is to prepare children for the workforce. Front line workers and the self appointed eduvultures do not even agree on the purpose of schools and education. This is a confluence of clusterfucks.
Sorry for the foul language, but this is a recipe for disaster. Evidently no one wants to tell the bloviating, bumbling billionaire.
Nothing I hear from the President suggests he believes the only role of schools is preparation for the workforce. More important, the President risked his Presidency fighting to expand health care – something that (at least for many of us) will help many more youngsters succeed.
What I do see from Coles and Ravitch is a willingness to ignore a great deal.
Obama doesn’t run the DOE..don’t be fooled. Gates and the wealthy eduvultures run the DOE.
Duncan just checks in with them every morning before proceeding. This is not a priority for Barack and I voted for him once. His girls are all set.
Ignore a great deal? Are you kidding? That makes me sick that you even associate what is presently happening to education and the words great deal.
I just watched the Sandy Hook kids sing with Jennifer Hudson. My former colleague and friend, Dawn Hochsprung, would me so proud. But what are we doing to our kids when all that matters is their test scores.
The race to the top is pitting kids against each other, teachers against teachers and schools against schools. Someone has to lose, and that’s okay? We have to compete to get our tax dollars back. We live in a sick, warped society if that is acceptable.
“Every school should have a performance contract that clearly defines its goals for student achievement. Each school’s performance goals would be based on its pupils’ progress from year to year.”
Every school should be managed by a council of parents and staff, by an experienced principal, by groups of teachers or by an organization (a university, a union) prepared to be accountable for student performance and fiscal integrity.
Every school should be rigorously audited for educational and fiscal performance.
The schools chancellor and the central board should set academic standards, administer citywide tests, sign performance contracts with every school and replace the managements of schools that fail to meet their own performance goals. The chancellor should have the power to close schools that consistently fail or engage in corrupt practices.
The central authorities should support the establishment of a wide range of schools, including single-sex schools, back-to-basics schools, progressive schools or anything else qualified educators wish to offer.
Parents ought to be able to send their children to the school of their choice, basing their decision on accessible, accurate information. Schools that no one wants to attend should be closed.
What do you think of this?
Sounds like they’re running a factory not providing a public service. Performance targets? And what do we do with those inconvenient little widgets who are substandard?
Oh, boy. Now you said it. It’s that “one size doesn’t fit all” again. The inconvenient little widgets… those poor kids. And the teachers will be harshly judged when those widgets do not measure up on the MAP, Dibels, ACCESS, mClass Math, etc. What are we doing to the next generations? And why?
Race to the top. Race. In any race there are winners & losers. That’s the whole point of a race. Isn’t it?
Cheryl – did you hear the things I mentioned in the speech?
Cheryl,
Exactly.
Cheryl, you are correct. There is no reasonable defense of RttT. I believe it is purposely creating chaos in our schools.
Hi Joe Nathan,
We did hear the same speech, i.e., I am aware of the positive statements the president made about equal opportunity and treatment of “our wives, our mothers, and daughters” and ” our gay brothers and sisters,” and similar statements that I applaud.
However, I addressed his comments on education and poverty, and there was nothing in his speech, nor in your comments, to suggest he will, in his second term, pursue policies in these areas that are better than the deplorable educational and economic policies of his first term (so far, e.g., it seems that Arne Duncan will remain as Sec. of Ed., which is a barometer of future ed policy).
I agree with you that for some families “some charters represent an empowerment,” however, that statement says nothing about educational policy as a whole that will best serve youngsters adversely affected by inequality. Moreover, certainly the same “empowerment” statement can be applied to families who send their children to many public schools that are superior to charter schools (see, e.g., Anthony Cody’s discussion of the latest CREDO critical research on charters vs. public schools, “Churn for Charters”).
What is needed are national economic and educational policies that dramatically begin to end poverty, drastically reduce inequality, fully fund schools, enrich curriculum, fully staff schools, allow for small class size, eliminate high stakes testing, etc. Where is the indication that Obama will address this any better in his second term?
As for the most important pedagogical issue, i.e., the purposes of education, most needed is policy that promotes an education in accord with the principles Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. identified in my quote from his writings. For the president to continue to remain in the Bill Gates chorus of “educating to compete in the global economy” is a premise that not only contains a zero-sum game promoting some winners and many losers, it also eviscerates most of the content of the meaning of education that King enumerates, particularly as it pertains to citizenship and critical thinking, an outcome that sits well with the 1% who want no students to think about them.
Finally, speaking of the 1%, to me the most disconcerting part of the entire educational policy debate is that the 1% who rule this country (and are heavily represented in the Obama administration) simply do not care about the poor and much of the working class, or their children. Their policy is: do as little as possible & keep playing three card monte with children’s lives. For a discussion of that, see my commentary, “Why Bother Educating the Poor.”
I get no happiness, Joe, from my appraisal of Obama’s likely educational policies. However, it’s best, I believe, to appraise the likely policy ahead and act accordingly.
Gerald Coles
Dr. Coles, glad to hear you applaud the comments that the President made about expanding rights of people, regardless of sexual orientation, of expanding health care, of honoring women’s right to control their bodies. There’s nothing in your Ed Week commentary that acknowledges any of that. Why not?
Obama and Duncan arranged for hundreds of millions to go to strong new early childhood programs. Ignored.
Historic health care efforts to help low income people and others who have been denied coverage. Ignored.
Hundreds of millions to work with families, as well as schools, building on Harlem Zone. Ignored.
AND – efforts to reduce funding for the military and have super wealthy pay more, so that we an afford to put more into effective social problems – also ignored.
On and on.
Obama is not the fundamental problem. Conservative Republicans who are blocking efforts to increase funding for certain education and social problems (or who want to cut programs – they are the bigger problem.
Hi Joe Nathan,
There’s no question that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, it’s better that Obama beat Romney and I certainly agree with your assessment that the Republicans “are the bigger problem.” However, we need to recognize that the Democratic Party, especially since Clinton, has drifted to the right and now is a party resembling the liberal Republicans of the 1970s. To quote Cornel West’s scathing words, “I’m glad there was not a right-wing takeover, but we end up with a Republican, a Rockefeller Republican in blackface, with Barack Obama, so that our struggle with regard to poverty intensifies.”
As West explains: “Richard Nixon is to the left of him on healthcare. Richard Nixon is to the left of him on guaranteed income. And the same policies in terms of imperial foreign policy is at work. And so, I was glad to see that Romney didn’t win. We pushed back a right-wing takeover. We’ve got a right-wing mentality: cut, cut, cut, austerity, austerity, austerity. Where is the “serious talk about investment in jobs, fighting the privatizing of education, and the empowerment of trade unions?”
For the full interview, go to:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/9/tavis_smiley_cornel_west_on_the
In an interview with Black Agenda Report, West, when again asked about his characterization of the president, explained, ” a Rockefeller Republican in the 60’s and 70’s was in many ways very much what Obama is now. He’s calling for cuts with little bit of revenue increase with the tax from the well-to-do, but it’s going to be very modest, he keeps saying. There’s no serious talk about a massive investment, private or public, for jobs, for decent housing, and for education. And his foreign policy is not only continuous with Bush but in some ways even worse.”
For the full interview, go to:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/interview-cornel-west-occupy-obama-and-marx
To this I would add that the Democrats, starting with Clinton’s support of “free trade” agreements and the “end of welfare as we know it,” have either initiated or supported every so-called “bi-partisan” domestic and foreign policy agreement,by putting that agreement not in the political and economic “middle” but to the right-of-center. Clinton moved the Democrats to the right-of-center and Obama continues to situate them there.
With respect to what Obama and Duncan have done for education and children, certainly it’s relatively better than how education and children would have been heavily hammered by the Republicans, but since you are a reader of “Living in Dialogue,” Diane’s blog, and similar education blogs, you surely are aware of how damaging the Obama/Duncan policies have been, despite a few positive gestures.
In criticizing the Democrats and the president, it’s important not to promote a cynicism that makes people indifferent about working for political, economic and social progress. Surely that progress won’t come from the Republicans, but neither will it come from the Democratic party as it’s been constituted for decades. For those remaining loyal to the Democratic Party, there must be a recognition of need to move it far beyond its current “Rockefellerism” (& Clintonism).
Criticism of the Democrats and Obama should be seen not as “polarizing” but as candid appraisals of a political party to which we shouldn’t be tethered simply because they’re not as bad as the other ruling party. At the very least, for those still loyal to the Democrats and Obama, “tough love” should govern support and appraisals.
Gerald Coles
I
Gerry, twice I’ve asked why you did not write anything positive about President’s actions in your Education Week post that potentially reached thousands of people. For the 2nd time you have not responded.
You write about the military budget, which President Obama has proposed cutting. Again, you did not mention his efforts to cut the budget. You did not mention his efforts to get the US out of Iraq (a ridiculous and hugely expensive disaster). You did not mention his efforts to reduce tensions in the Middle East, and to reach out to Muslims.
Under Clinton, who you also criticize, the federal budget was balanced, unemployment was lower, and there was a very pro public education Education Secretary, former South Carolina Secretary of Education Richard Riley. Riley and Clinton worked very hard to promote more collaboration between schools and community groups. Clinton & Riley urged greater funding for high quality early childhood education. Clinton also tried very hard to have a health care system that reached millions more. Healthier students would potentially be students who learn more. Those are only a few positive things that I think his administration did.
Yes, I agree that any President’s policies should be examined and potentially, criticized as well as supported.
What I see in your writing is what some public educators complain about…an unwillingness to acknowledge the many good things that are happening, along with questions and concerns. .
You say nothing positive about President Obama in your Education Week post. You say nothing positive about President Clinton in your most recent post.
This lack of balance, this lack of willingness to compliment as well as to criticize, seems to me the kind of thing that contributes to the massive polarization in this country.
Joe,
We can’t have a discussion if you don’t want to look critically at Obama’s policies. Here I only have time to deal with one issue you raise, i.e., the military budget. You say that I “write about the military budget, which President Obama has proposed cutting” and you also talk about Obama & Iraq. Honestly, I don’t know what you have in mind.
1) Check his voting record and you’ll see that while in the Senate he voted for every spending bill for the war. When president he transferred spending for the war in Iraq to the war in Afghanistan, which has been bleeding the national treasury for years and will continue to do so for many years.
2) Re. Obama’s “cutting” the military budget now, see the following:
“Obama thanks Panetta for service, warns against military budget cuts”
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/08/16903726-obama-thanks-panetta-for-service-warns-against-military-budget-cuts?lite
“Obama Demands Delay to Avoid Military Spending Cuts”
“Barack Obama signs sweeping US defence spending bill”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9777275/Barack-Obama-signs-sweeping-US-defence-spending-bill.html
Why did you have nothing to say about Clinton moving the Democrat Party to the right or about the damage he has done to American workers through initiating “free trade”agreements?
As for Richard Riley, really, Joe, you need to look closer at that history. Examine, for example, his support of the 1999 Reading Excellence Act, which he described as ” the most significant law on child literacy passed by Congress in more than 30 years.” That Act, created by both the Republicans and the Democrats was the precursor of NCLB, which damaged a generation of school children, thanks, btw, because of the bi-partisan support of NCLB!
Finally, in my last post I referred to comments critical of Obama made by Cornell West & the Black Agenda Report. Why have you nothing to say about them? Did you read them?
Gerry
Schools COULD help overcome poverty if producing capable, self-fulfilling, cooperative, socially/ active citizens was the goal.
The idea that even more effort and investment for training learners to be more compliant, willing and effective participants in an economy that has already proven itself unworthy of respect/compliance is foolhardy.
Read my book, “Yes, We Are Stupid in America”. The U.S. Department of Education needs to be abolished! America 2000, NCLB, Race to The Top, and ARRA are a complete waste of time and money. Arne Duncan needs to step down. Turn over those billions of dollars to the states.
Read this..catch the last few lines…
“Choice is not a problem. Quality is not a problem. Parents in this district don’t have complaints about our teachers. City planning says these new charters are a bad idea.”
Brooke Parker answers the door of her rented Greenpoint townhouse in her sweatpants, two days after Christmas. Her kindergartner is racing around with a playdate. Parker has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and has two daughters and a stepdaughter. She used to work in film; her husband, Erik Parker, is a well-regarded contemporary artist. She is funny, profane, intimidatingly well informed, and talks almost nonstop for more than an hour. The co-founder and representative of Williamsburg and Greenpoint Parents: Our Public Schools (WAGPOPS), the parent group spearheading the opposition to Success Academy and Citizens of the World in District 14, she has a bracing message for outsiders like Grannis and Moskowitz coming into the neighborhood: “What the fuck? Who the hell are you? How do you get to decide we need a new school?”
http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-01-30/news/Eva-Moskowitz-Bloomberg-Charter-Schools/
The fact is that if enough families don’t enroll their kids, there won’t be a school.
By all accounts, Joe, they don’t need a new school. Any more schools would destabilize a system that is currently working. Where did this “parents should be able to choose ” mantra come from? Education as strictly a consumer product! Really?
Where did the idea that we should be able to vote come from? Where did the idea come from that this was a democracy, and that minorities have rights come from? As I recall it was from the Declaration of Independence.
Because a reporter and the people the reporter chose to quote don’t believe that a new school isn’t need does not mean that some parents actively want another option.
We heard the same argument in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1971. “We don’t need any option in ST. Paul…this will destroy the system. In fact, a new k-12 option drew more than 1,000 students whose families wanted the school (this was a district option). The school was capped at 500 and this led to other options (such as two Montessori public schools being created). But the initial arguments were the same against any of this was the same – we don’t need this and moving ahead will destroy the system.
So where did freedom come from? From the earliest days of our country.
“So where did freedom come from? From the earliest days of our country.”
Joe Nathan, freedom cannot be separated from responsibility. I am not truly free, if my actions of self-interest hurt others. We do not live in a vacuum. Please do not try to over-simplify and trivialize the
concept of freedom to justify your points. It truly sickens me.
Children as global competitors… people as a workforce commodity.
That’s our culture now it seems.
Children should be much more than global competitors, right? They should be encouraged to play, develop some facility in the arts, learn how to help other people, be kind, work for a more just world? (that’s just of the things I think many of us hope for). Not just global competitors.
And I think the President would agree.
President Obama’s words: “… schools and colleges to train our workers.” “We must harness new ideas and technology to… reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder.” “… train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future.”
Really, Obama agrees? I see the words: train, workers, work harder, equip….
I don’t see creativity, help, play, design, dream, think, aspire, question, wonder….we’re just making widgets Joe under the Gates USDOE…..rows and rows of potential widget makers.
President Obama’s words: “… schools and colleges to train our workers.” “We must harness new ideas and technology to… reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder.” “… train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future.”
President John F. Kennedy’s words: “Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength for our nation.”
Wow. That second guy had a clue.
With respect to the suggestion that the “federal govt. should get out of the classroom entirely,” I think that’s a complicated issue, given, for example, the federal government’s historic role in ending LEGAL segregation of schools. While issues of curriculum and what should and should not be discussed in the classroom do caution against a national curriculum, there are complications to be considered. For example, do we want “local” control where students can only learn that the world was created 6,000 years ago and global warming is a socialist hoax? I just raise these complications and will leave fuller discussion of them for another day.
Where I think the federal government clearly should be involved is in financial support of schools, teachers & students. Compare, for example, military vs. education spending.
I think the Dept. of Ed. budget is about $70 billion, about 2% of the federal budget.
In contrast, the military budget is more than a dozen times larger at about $977.5 billion!!!! (For the calculation of true military costs, see David Cay Johnson’s analysis in the current Clolumbia Journalism Review:
http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/the_true_cost_of_national_secu.php?page=all
Does the U.S. need nearly anywhere from 700-1,000 (depending on the calculation) military bases ringing the world? Does it need to outspend more the combined military spending of at least the top dozen or more nations?
Schools deteriorate, teachers are fired, class size increases, neighborhood schools close, teachers spend their own money on classroom materials, while money flows like a rushing river to military corporations and unnecessary wars. With the right national priorities, here there surely is a place for the federal government to contribute to schools and children’s education.
Gerry
Well, we have established that we know what is going on. What are we going to DO about it? There are so many of us–and with advanced degrees to boot! We could be a FORCE. instead, we mostly remain inactive.
I can appreciate that we are finally becoming more vocal, though.